Maine DEP Biological Monitoring Program...Oct 18, 2012 · Biological Monitoring Program MAINE...

1

Monitoring, Assessment and Tiered Aquatic

Life Use Criteria for Maine Wetlands

Jeanne L. DiFranco

Maine Department of Environmental Protection

Biological Monitoring Program

MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Protecting Maine’s Air, Land and Water

New Hampshire Department of

Environmental Services

Wetlands Water Quality Standards

Subcommittee Meeting

October 18, 2012

Maine DEP Biological

Monitoring Program

� Resides within State water quality assessment program

� Integrated approach for rivers, streams and freshwater wetlands

� Determines if water bodies are attaining aquatic life

criteria

� Provides data and technical support to other programs

MAINE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION www.maine.gov/dep

2

MAINE DEPARTMENT OF

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

� Rotating basin

schedule

� Lacustrine and riverine

fringe

� Emergent and aquatic bed vegetation

� Water depth < 1 meter

in area sampled

Annual

Monitoring

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

Three 1 meter D-net sweeps


3

Wetland AlgaePhytoplankton and Epiphytes


Water Chemistry


4

Site Characterization


Human Disturbance Score(Field-based stressor assessment)

� Hydrologic modifications

� Vegetative modifications

� Evidence of chemical pollutants

� Impervious surface in watershed

� Other potential non-point sources


5

Using Monitoring Results

� Monitor ambient condition, identify threats

� Develop/support biological criteria

� Inform permit decisions (discharges, hydropower, wetland/stream alterations, etc.)

� Integrated watershed assessments

� Evaluate mitigation success

� Support TMDL development

� Target conservation and restoration efforts

� Support wetland education and outreach activities


Maine’s Water Classification Law

� State legislature established management classes (AA, A, B, & C) and goals (designated uses )for fresh surface waters.

� Lakes and estuarine/marine waters have separate classes (not displayed).

� Wetlands assume class of associated water body

� Each class has water quality criteria, including aquatic life

criteria (biomonitoring program focus)

6

Wetland Biocriteria Development

� Narrative biocriteria for fresh surface waters based on tiered aquatic life goals

� Need consistent approach to apply aquatic life criteria to wetlands (to facilitate use of data by other programs)

� Need to compare assessment results from various assemblages (invertebrates, algae), sampling methods and resource/habitat types for watershed-level assessments


Narrative Tiered Aquatic Life Criteria

Lakes and pondsGPA Habitat natural. Stable or decreasing trophic state

free of culturally induced algal blooms.

Other fresh surface waters (rivers, streams, wetlands) AA Habitat natural and free flowing. Aquatic life as

naturally occurs.

A Habitat natural. Aquatic life as naturally occurs.

B Habitat unimpaired. Must support all indigenous aquatic species. No detrimental changes to resident biological community.

C Must support all indigenous fish species and maintain structure and function of resident biological community.


7

Advantages of Tiered Criteria

� Provide greater protection for high value resources (vs. single criterion)

� Enhance ability to detect and respond to incremental changes in biological condition


Biological Condition Gradient (BCG) and Tiered Aquatic Life Use (TALU)

Bio

log

ica

l

Co

nd

itio

nG

rad

ien

t

Stressor GradientLow High

1

2

3

4

5

6

Native or natural condition

Minimal loss of species; some density changes may occur

Some replacement

of sensitive species; functions fully maintained

Some sensitive species

maintained but notable replacement by more tolerant taxa; altered distributions; functions largely maintained

Tolerant species show increasing dominance;

sensitive species are rare; functions altered

Severe alteration of structure and function

Natural

Degraded

A

B

C

N

A

AA


8

Reference Site Criteria

51 reference sites selected using objective criteria:

� Watershed land use 95% or greater “natural”

(forest or wetland)

� Total DEP Human Disturbance Score 10 or less; no single category score above 5

� Specific conductance <100 uS/cm (only 8 of 51 sites exceeded 50 uS/cm)

-1.5

-1.5

-0.5 0.5 1.5

-0.5

0.5

1.5

Axis 1

Axis

2

RP

12

Reference Site Ordination Non-metric multi-dimensional scaling (NMS, PCORD 5)

� No patterns in invertebrate communities due to wetland type detected (riverine vs. lacustrine)

� No significant patterns related to ecoregions

� Supports decision to proceed with a single model

Lacustrine

Riverine

Riverine


9

Taxa OptimaPredict “preferred” environmental

conditions for each taxon

Calculated weighted average taxa optima for environmental stressors (C2):

� total phosphorus

� conductivity

� human disturbance score

� % impervious surface (1000m buffer)

� % human alteration (1000m buffer)

Courtesy Jan Stevenson


Maine Tolerance Values for Wetland Invertebrates

� Tolerance values for individual taxa calculated using species optima. Resulting tolerance values scaled from 1-100.

� Three categories determined for taxa tolerance metrics:

� Sensitive taxa: values <= 22.0

� Intermediate taxa: 22.1 - 42.9

� Eurytopic taxa*: values >=43.0

*Taxa that occur across a wide range of environmental conditions


10

Name GroupMaine

Tolerance

Value

Name GroupMaine

Tolerance

Value

Agrypnia CADDISFLY 1.0 Polycentropus CADDISFLY 15.4

Xenochironomus FLY: MIDGE 1.5 Larsia FLY: MIDGE 15.6

Aulodrilus TUBIFICID WORM 3.8 Nigronia DOBSONFLY 15.7

Neolimnochares MITE 3.9 Oecetis CADDISFLY 16.3

Slavina WORM 4.2 Siphlonurus MAYFLY 17.0

Sisyra SISYRID 5.8 Crangonyx AMPHIPOD 17.2

Zavrelimyia FLY: MIDGE 6.4 Lauterborniella FLY: MIDGE 17.4

Cryptotendipes FLY: MIDGE 7.1 Hygrotus BEETLE 17.6

Petrophila MOTH 7.9 Alluaudomyia FLY: BITING MIDGE 18.0

Boyeria DRAGONFLY/DAMSEFLY 8.0 Stylaria WORM 18.0

Tribelos FLY: MIDGE 9.3 Labrundinia FLY: MIDGE 18.1

Dubiraphia BEETLE 10.4 Mystacides CADDISFLY 18.2

Limnochares MITE 10.5 Coenagrion DRAGONFLY/DAMSEFLY 18.5

Neureclipsis CADDISFLY 10.5 Amnicola SNAIL 18.7

Parakiefferiella FLY: MIDGE 10.9 Cloeon MAYFLY 19.1

Nilothauma FLY: MIDGE 11.0 Triaenodes CADDISFLY 19.3

Nehalennia DRAGONFLY/DAMSEFLY 11.3 Guttipelopia FLY: MIDGE 19.4

Pagastiella FLY: MIDGE 11.8 Arthroplea MAYFLY 19.5

Gyrinus BEETLE 11.9 Omisus FLY: MIDGE 20.7

Culex FLY: MOSQUITO 12.1 Chrysops FLY: HORSE AND DEER 20.7

Vejdovskyella WORM 13.7 Paratendipes FLY: MIDGE 20.8

Nanocladius FLY: MIDGE 14.1 Scirtes BEETLE 20.9

Ischnura DRAGONFLY/DAMSEFLY 14.6 Procloeon MAYFLY 21.0

Hydrodroma MITE 14.8 Zavrelliella FLY: MIDGE 21.8

Banksiola CADDISFLY 14.9 Orthocladius FLY: MIDGE 22.0

Libellula DRAGONFLY/DAMSEFLY 15.0 Oxyethira CADDISFLY 22.0

Psectrocladius FLY: MIDGE 22.0

Sensitive Taxa Tolerance Values

Name GroupMaine

Tolerance Value

Name GroupMaine

Tolerance Value

Caenis MAYFLY 22.1 Baetis MAYFLY 29.9

Cladotanytarsus FLY: MIDGE 22.2 Clinotanypus FLY: MIDGE 30.3

Microtendipes FLY: MIDGE 22.3 Dasyhelea FLY: BITING MIDGE 30.6

Eylais MITE 23.0 Stenelmis BEETLE 30.7

Eurylophella MAYFLY 23.2 Hydrachna MITE 30.8

Dineutus BEETLE 23.2 Cryptochironomus FLY: MIDGE 31.3

Ablabesmyia FLY: MIDGE 23.6 Coptotomus BEETLE 32.0

Arrenurus MITE 23.8 Lestes DRAGONFLY/DAMSEFLY 32.6

Ceraclea CADDISFLY 23.9 Valvata SNAIL 33.4

Polypedilum FLY: MIDGE 24.2 Promenetus SNAIL 33.4

Hyalella AMPHIPOD 24.5 Tanypus FLY: MIDGE 33.5

Limnephilus CADDISFLY 24.6 Physella SNAIL 34.0

Thienemanniella FLY: MIDGE 24.7 Chauliodes DOBSONFLY 34.4

Leucorrhinia DRAGONFLY/DAMSEFLY 24.7 Agabus BEETLE 34.5

Pelocoris TRUE BUG 24.7 Lumbriculus WORM 35.0

Unionicola MITE 24.8 Neoplea TRUE BUG 35.5

Sphaerium MUSSEL/CLAM 24.8 Stempellinella FLY: MIDGE 35.7

Musculium MUSSEL/CLAM 24.8 Erpobdella LEECH 36.4

Chaoborus FLY: PHANTOM MIDGE 25.0 Limnesia MITE 37.0

Procladius FLY: MIDGE 25.1 Sympetrum DRAGONFLY/DAMSEFLY 37.0

Donacia BEETLE 25.1 Rhyncholimnochares MITE 37.1

Dixella FLY: DIXID MIDGE 25.4 Pachydiplax DRAGONFLY/DAMSEFLY 37.1

Tanytarsus FLY: MIDGE 25.7 Gyraulus SNAIL 37.2

Hydryphantes MITE 25.8 Dero WORM 37.9

Enallagma DRAGONFLY/DAMSEFLY 26.2 Corynoneura FLY: MIDGE 40.1

Limnophyes FLY: MIDGE 26.5 Gammarus AMPHIPOD 40.3

Ferrissia SNAIL 26.7 Callibaetis MAYFLY 40.5

Bezzia/palpomyia FLY: BITING MIDGE 26.9 Ilybius BEETLE 40.7

Piona MITE 27.2 Neurocordulia DRAGONFLY/DAMSEFLY 41.3

Graphoderus BEETLE 27.4 Belostoma TRUE BUG 41.7

Chironomus FLY: MIDGE 27.4 Culicoides FLY: BITING MIDGE 42.1

Cladopelma FLY: MIDGE 27.9 Mansonia FLY: MOSQUITO 42.2

Aeshna DRAGONFLY/DAMSEFLY 27.9 Ranatra TRUE BUG 42.3

Parachironomus FLY: MIDGE 28.6 Stagnicola SNAIL 42.8

Probezzia FLY: BITING MIDGE 28.6 Helisoma SNAIL 42.8

Dicrotendipes FLY: MIDGE 28.8 Hydroporus BEETLE 42.9

Paramerina FLY: MIDGE 29.3 Matus BEETLE 42.9

Inte

rme

dia

te T

ax

a T

ole

ran

ce

Va

lue

s

11

Eurytopic Taxa Tolerance ValuesName Group

Maine

Tolerance

Value

Name Group

Maine

Tolerance

Value

Anopheles FLY: MOSQUITO 43.0 Monopelopia FLY: MIDGE 60.4

Cricotopus FLY: MIDGE 43.0 Mesovelia TRUE BUG 60.6

Glyptotendipes FLY: MIDGE 43.0 Rheotanytarsus FLY: MIDGE 61.6

Helobdella LEECH 43.0 Tropisternus BEETLE 61.8

Nais WORM 43.0 Deronectes BEETLE 63.4

Paratanytarsus FLY: MIDGE 43.0 Laccophilus BEETLE 63.7

Natarsia FLY: MIDGE 43.6 Haliplus BEETLE 67.1

Phylocentropus CADDISFLY 43.8 Ceratopogon FLY: BITING MIDGE 71.5

Phaenopsectra FLY: MIDGE 44.2 Acricotopus FLY: MIDGE 75.0

Pseudochironomus FLY: MIDGE 47.7 Einfeldia FLY: MIDGE 76.1

Ancyronyx BEETLE 49.2 Lymnaea SNAIL 83.3

Endochironomus FLY: MIDGE 50.2 Limnodrilus TUBIFICID WORM 83.9

Caecidotea ISOPOD 51.9 Haemonais WORM 86.1

Pseudocloeon MAYFLY 52.8 Berosus BEETLE 87.9

Tipula FLY: CRANE 53.8 Cipangopaludina SNAIL 88.2

Glossiphonia LEECH 55.3 Hydrophilus BEETLE 94.0

Fossaria SNAIL 56.1 Odontomyia FLY: AQUATIC SOLDIER

94.2

Peltodytes BEETLE 56.2 Psectrotanypus FLY: MIDGE 95.6

Hydaticus BEETLE 56.9 Micropsectra FLY: MIDGE 98.1

Maine Tolerance Index (MTI) for Wetland Invertebrates


�Weighted average community level

biotic index

�Similar to Hillsenhoff Biotic Index

used for stream assessments

�Based on data from Maine wetlands

12

Environmental Inference Models

� Constructed models to infer site-specific environmental stressor values for:

� conductivity

� total phosphorus

� % impervious surface

� % human alteration

� DEP human disturbance score

� Help diagnose stressors and determine relative importance of multiple stressors


Metric and Threshold Development

0 10 20 30 40 50

DEP Human Disturbance Score

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

EO

T R

ela

tive

Ric

hn

ess

Tested over 100 biological attributes for

predictable response to disturbance gradient


0 10 20 30 40 50

% Impervious Cover (1000m buffer)

0

5

10

15

Ra

tio S

en

siti

ve

:Eu

ryto

pic

Ta

xa

Ric

hn

ess

13

A Priori Class and BCG

Tier Determinations

� DEP biologists assigned Maine water quality class attainment (A, B, C, NA) and BCG tiers for 201 macroinvertebrate samples

� Initial calls done “blind” by individual team members using only biological data (site names, physical/chemical data not revealed)

� Narrative aquatic life use criteria, invertebrate metrics, taxa tolerance values, inference models and BCG used to inform a priori class determinations (biologists’ calls)

� Compiled results for each team member and resolved differences by consensus


Unanimous 37%

Split call, differed by 1 class

49%

Split call, differed by more

than 1 class6%

Indeterminate(at least 1 person)

8%

Summary of DEP Biologists Agreement on Individual Class Attainment Calls


Total number of

samples = 201

74 samples

97 samples

13 samples

17 s

am

ple

s

14

Class Attainment

Predictive Model

� Linear Discriminant Model to predict aquatic life use attainment of new macroinvertebrate samples

� Expert judgment incorporated via biologists’ initial determinations (used in model building)

� LDM model will serve as basis for wetland-

specific numeric biocriteria


Total abundance

Ephemeroptera abundance

Odonate relative abundance

Trichoptera relative abundance

Shredder taxa relative abundance

Non-insect relative richness

Sensitive taxa abundance

Sensitive taxa relative abundance

Sensitive taxa richness

Intermediate taxa relative abundance

Intermediate taxa richness

Ratio of sensitive to eurytopic taxa abundance


Wetland Macroinvertebrate Provisional Linear Discriminant Model Variables

15

LDM Model Class Predictions

Agreement with DEP Biologists’ Determinations(Number of samples; Values in red indicate samples misclassified by model)

A B C NA Total in

Class: Biologist Calls

Percent

Correctly Classifiedby Model

A 64 agree 4 0 0 68 94%

B 3 27 agree 1 0 31 87%

C 0 3 24 agree 0 27 89%

NA 0 0 1 9 agree 10 90%

91% Total

Jackknife re-sampling results: 85% of samples correctly classified (SYSTAT version 13)

In most cases, misclassified sites were borderline calls

based on biologists’ expert judgment


BPJ Adjustments Allowed

� Atypical habitat or site conditions

� Sample does not meet model criteria (total mean abundance ≥50, total generic richness ≥15)

� If model class probability <0.6 and >0.4, may raise or lower the class with compelling evidence


16

Maine Tolerance Index: Macroinvertebrate Community Values in Relation to Attained

Class


A B C NA

Attained Class

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Ma

ine

To

lera

nce

In

de

x S

co

re

Environmental Stressor Indicators in Relation to Attained Class


A B C NA

Attained Class

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% H

um

an

Alte

ratio

n (

10

00

m b

uffe

r)

A B C NA

Attained Class

0

10

20

30

40

50

% Im

pe

rvio

us C

ove

r (1

00

0m

bu

ffe

r)

A B C NA

Attained Class

0

10

20

30

40

50

DE

P H

um

an

Dis

turb

an

ce

Sco

re

A B C NA

Attained Class

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Sp

ecifi

c C

on

du

cta

nce

(u

S/c

m)

A B C NA

Attained Class

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

To

tal P

ho

sp

ho

rus (

mg

/l)

17

Model Variables in Relation to Attained Class

A B C NA

Attained Class

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

To

tal M

ea

n A

bu

nd

an

ce

A B C NA

Attained Class

0

50

100

150

200

250

Ep

he

me

rop

tera

Ab

un

da

nce

A B C NA

Attained Class

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

Od

on

ata

Re

lativ

e A

bu

nd

an

ce

A B C NA

Attained Class

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

Trich

op

tera

Re

lativ

e A

bu

nd

an

ce

A B C NA

Attained Class

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Sh

red

de

r T

axa

Re

lativ

e A

bu

nd

an

ce

A B C NA

Attained Class

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

No

n-I

nse

ct R

ela

tive

Ric

hn

ess

Model Variables in Relation to Attained Class


A B C NA

Attained Class

0

100

200

300

400

Se

nsiti

ve

Ta

xa

Abu

nd

an

ce

A B C NA

Attained Class

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Se

nsiti

ve

Ta

xa

Re

lativ

e A

bu

nd

an

ce

A B C NA

Attained Class

0

5

10

15

20

Se

nsiti

ve

Taxa

Ric

hn

ess

A B C NA

Attained Class

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

Inte

rme

dia

te T

axa R

ela

tive

Ab

un

da

nce

A B C NA

Attained Class

0

10

20

30

40

Inte

rme

dia

te T

axa

Ric

hn

ess

A B C NA

Attained Class

0

50

100

150

Ratio

: S

ensiti

ve to E

ury

top

ic T

axa A

bun

da

nce

18

Next Steps

� Test provisional macroinvertebrate model as new data

are collected and refine if necessary

� Incorporate model into rules as wetland-specific aquatic

life use criteria

� Complete analysis of wetland algae data and begin

algae model development

� Pilot monitoring and assessment projects for other

biological assemblages and wetland types (including forested wetlands)


Site Locations

(wetlands,

rivers and

streams)

Physical,

chemical and

biological data

Photos and

reports

Google Earth Biomonitoring Site


19

For more information…

Visit the Maine DEP Biological Monitoring Program web site at:

www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/biomonitoring

www.maine.gov/dep

Maine DEP Biological Monitoring Program...Oct 18, 2012 · Biological Monitoring Program MAINE...

Documents

Transcript of Maine DEP Biological Monitoring Program...Oct 18, 2012 · Biological Monitoring Program MAINE...